cv - ailene alea

7/27/2019 CV - Ailene Alea

1/20

Delhi Business Review XVol. 9, No. 1 (January - June 2008)

1

CHALLENGES FACING CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHALLENGES FACING CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHALLENGES FACING CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHALLENGES FACING CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHALLENGES FACING CHANGE MANAGEMENT

THEORIES AND RESEARCHTHEORIES AND RESEARCHTHEORIES AND RESEARCHTHEORIES AND RESEARCHTHEORIES AND RESEARCH

Mildred Golden Pryor*Mildred Golden Pryor*Mildred Golden Pryor*Mildred Golden Pryor*Mildred Golden Pryor*

Sonia Taneja**Sonia Taneja**Sonia Taneja**Sonia Taneja**Sonia Taneja**

John Humphreys***John Humphreys***John Humphreys***John Humphreys***John Humphreys***

Donna Anderson****Donna Anderson****Donna Anderson****Donna Anderson****Donna Anderson****

Lisa SinLisa SinLisa SinLisa SinLisa Singggggleton*****leton*****leton*****leton*****leton*****

HANGE management models and research are still relevant for the twenty-first century. The

problems are not with their relevancy or their worth. The problems and challenges facing

organizational leaders, organizational development experts and researchers relate to the speed

and complexity of change required today. This article addresses selected change management models

and research, their relevance in todays global economy and the challenges facing organizational

leaders and researchers in terms of their application and expected results. We also suggest a relatively

new strategic model as well as new applications of existing change management models and theories.

Key Words: Change Management, Transformation, Organizational Transformation,

Organizational Change.

Introduction

Today change is constant and organizational leaders who anticipate change and react rapidly and

responsibly are successful. However, the organizational leaders who anticipate and invent the future

are even more successful because those who invent the game are the leaders in their industry. Other

organizations are followers that adapt to change. Still others are the organizations that do not survive.

There are many models that can be used for successful organizational change. Winners respond to the

pace and complexity of change. They adapt, learn and act quickly. Losers try to control and master

change in the environment. It is important for organizational leaders to identify and use a model for

transformation that will help their organizations survive and flourish in the next century and beyond.

This article discusses and compares the components of various change models that have been (and canbe) used to react to and/or lead change.

Organizational Change versus Organizational TransformationOrganizational change has also been referred to as organizational development and organizational

transformation (Cummings and Worley, 2005; Newhouse and Chapman, 1996). Major differences in

changes today and those of previous eras are: (1) the simultaneous nature of the changes; (2) the speed

at which the different types of change occur; (3) the complexity of changes, (4) the immediate

communication and impact of the changes throughout the world; and (5) the need for individuals as

well as leaders of organizations and nations to step up and immediately make decisions and address

problems, issues and resolution. There are significant differences in the types of change in terms of

C

* Professor, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, Texas-75429, USA.

** Lecturer, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, Texas-75429, USA.

** * Associate Professor, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, Texas-75429, USA.

** ** Lecturer, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, Texas-75429, USA.

** ** * Research Associate, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, Texas-75429, USA.


2/20

Mildred Golden Pryor, Sonia Taneja, John Humphreys, Donna Anderson, and Lisa Singleton

2

convergent and radical change as well as revolutionary and evolutionary change (Cummings and Worley,

2005; Greenwood and Hinings, 1988; Kelly and Amburgey; Miller and Friessen, 1984; Mohrmann,

Mohrmann, Ledford, Cummings and Lawler, 1989; Nadler, Shaw, Walton and Associates, 1995;

Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). Radical organizational change or frame bending involves tearing loose

from an existing orientation (Johnson, 1987; Miller, 1982; Miller and Friesen, 1982, 1984) and

transforming the organization (bending it toward another orientation). Greenwood and Hinings (1996,

p.1024) note that convergent change is fine tuning the existing orientation. Because of the pace of

change today, it is radical, not convergent change in which we are interested. Therefore, it is necessary to

define change and organizational transformation in terms of the degree to which organizational change

occurs as well as how rapidly the change occurs. Regardless of its speed, organizational change is the

movement of an organization from the existing plateau toward a desired future state in order to increase

organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Cummings and Worley, 2005; George and Jones, 2002).

Figure 1: Adapting Organization Responding to Change

Source:Adapted from Cateora and Graham (2002, p.9) and Pryor and Cullen (1993, p.10-14)

Such changes may be sporadic or ongoing, continuous improvement initiatives as a result of organizations

REACTING to external forces for change. Changes like these may be a part of improvement initiatives

such as Total Quality Management and Six Sigma or Organizational Development initiatives based on

various change models. Such change initiatives are worthwhile. Figure 1 depicts an organization

changing in response to its domestic and global environment.

Organizational transformation is a radical movement that reflects widespread revitalization throughout

the entire organization. Instead of an incremental strategy, organizational leaders adopt a radical,

Organizational

Environment

(Controllable)

Domestic Environment

(Uncontrollable)

Political/LegalForces

CompetitiveStructure

EconomicClimate

Global Environment

(Uncontrollable)

Political/Legal

Forces

Economic

Forces

CulturalForces

CompetitiveForces

Geography

and

Infrastructure

Distribution

Structure

TechnologicalForces

Natural

Disasters

Terrorism

Illiteracy Wars & Threats

Of War

Hunger &

Disease

Security

Compromises

& Identity

Theft

Violence in

Families, Schools,

Workplaces,

Society

WorldwideElectronic

Communication

Problems with

Individual &Organizational

Ethics & Integrity


3/20

Delhi Business ReviewX

Vol. 9, No. 1 (January - June 2008)

3

fundamental change strategy whereby continuously learning and rapid reinvention are an integral

part of how they do business. They transform their respective organizations by developing (and deploying)

new visions, missions, values, goals, strategies and structures that reflect a continuously-changing

organization and the capability for ongoing, radical self transformation and reinvention. In other words,

transformed organizations change to such an extent that change becomes an on-going process and the

norm. Of utmost importance, the transformed organization PROACTIVELY drives innovation to the

extent that it becomes a major force for change within the macro-environment as well. With this

definition of organizational transformation, the transformed organization is added to macro-environmental

forces along with technological advances, economic and political changes and other such forces (Beckhard,

1997, 1969; Beckhard and Harris, 1982; Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992, Boeker, 1989; Cummings and

Worley, 2005, Pettigrew, 1990; Pryor and Cullen, 1993; Pryor, White and Toombs, 1998; and Pryor

and erson, Toombs and Humphreys, 2007).

Todays World of ChangeOrganizational leaders in this era are facing change that is unprecedented in terms of type, quantity,

speed, span/reach, cause, world-wide communication and implications, time available to address changes

and expectations for performance results. Also, they must simultaneously think and make decisions

about future change, some of which is long term and some of which is immediate (Cummings and

Worley, 2005; Greenwood and Hinings, 1988; Kelly and Amburgey; Miller and Friessen, 1984; Nadler,

Shaw, Walton and Associates, 1995; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). This requirement of simultaneously

planning for the long term and the short term is not unique. What is unique is that organizational

leaders must now plan into the future 20 or more years whereas in the past, long term meant 3- to 5-

year plans. They must simultaneously plan for the short term which often means immediate responses

in 15 minutes instead of weeks or months. This also requires much more planning for contingencies.Otherwise, change happens to organizations instead of organizations being on the forefront of change.

Examples of actions and circumstances which impact private for-profit and not-for-profit organizations

as well as nations and which cause change include:

Organizations and their employees are charged with illegalities (Burke, Polimeni and Slavin, 2007;

Lindgreen, 2004; Doherty, 2007; Lindgreen, 2004; Heineman and Heimann, 2006).

Economic conditions change as they are impacted by organizational failures, terrorist attacks,

natural disasters, etc. (Caterinicchia, 2007; Johnson; 2002; Bram and Rapaport, 2002; May, 2006).

Consumer behavior changes, e.g., children use computers at a very early age (PBS Parents, 2007;

Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield and Gross, Fall/Winter, 2000).

Suppliers fail as big customers force them to lower prices or as other changes impact them e.g.,Mattel toys manufactured in China containing lead (Spencer and Casey, 2007).

Employee unions strike as organizational leaders give themselves bigger bonuses salaries and ask

for concessions from unions (Bailey, 2007).

Violence spills over from society to the work place and schools. Children and adults are injured and/

or (Reiss and Roth, 1993; Shaver, 2006).

Natural disasters occur throughout the world and individuals, organizations and nations try to

respond to the impact of hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, fires and floods (CNN,

2007; NASA News, 2004; USA Today, 2005).

Countries and terrorists threaten and attack each other verbally and physically; and the pictures

of those attacks are shown 24 hours a day 7 days a week throughout the world (CNN/World/Asia,

2007; CNN/World/Europe, 2007; Media, 2007). Individuals and families experience pain from addictions to credit card debt, illegal and legal drugs,

pornography, gambling, etc. (Copello, Templeton and Velleman, 2006; Reiss and Roth, 1993).


4/20


4

The following are recent events that have triggered the need for immediate as well as long-termpreparations for and responses to, change:

Terrorism Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against U.S. people, buildings and economy (National Commissionon Terrorist Attacks, 2004). The 9/11 attacks killed thousands of people, destroyed airplanes anddemolished buildings. The results of these attacks included immediate, crippling effects on the emotionsof individuals as well as the U.S. economy. People began to question the extent to which their lives,their workplaces, their finances, their world were safe. Johnson (2002) feels that September 11, 2001will always be remembered for the act of terrorism that not only struck New Yorks financial centerbut also highlighted the vulnerability of the countrys financial system and exposed its exploitation forcriminal purposes. Terrorism is now viewed as both a threat to US national security and the integrityof the US financial system, with money laundering linked to the hiding of terrorist funds. Bram andRapaport (2002) evaluate the economic consequences of the September 11, 2001in terms of the effects of

the attack on the inputs to the production process: labor and capital. It is estimated that the aggregatepresent value of lost lifetime earnings for workers killed in the attack is about $7.8 billion. In addition,in the nine months following the attack, lost jobs and a reduction in the number of hours worked

Transformed

OrganizationalEnvironment(Controllable)

DomesticEnvironment

(Uncontrollable)

Political/Legal

Forces

CompetitiveStructure

Economic

Climate

Global Environment(uncontrollable)

Political/Legal

Forces

EconomicForces

Cultural

Forces

CompetitiveForces

Geography

andInfrastructure

Distribution

Structure

TechnologicalForces

TransformedOrganizational

Forces

TransformedOrganizational

Forces

Figure 2: Transformed Organisation Inventing the Future and Impacting its Environment

Source:Adapted from Figure 1 to depict the transformed organization that is capable of

constant, continuous reinvention of itself and positive, dramatic impact on its

domestic and international environments.


5/20



5

translated into an estimated shortfall in aggregate earnings of $3.6 billion to $6.4 billion. The cost ofreplacing the destroyed and damaged physical capital and infrastructure is estimated at $21.6 billion.

Terrorist attacks have occurred around the world in Egypt, in England, in India, in Spain and inmany other parts of the world. With each attack, the terrorists are able to hurt people and countriesphysically, economically and financially and they hurt people emotionally as they experience fear aswell as the other hurts. Yet so far, no individual, no organization, no nation has been able to adequatelyplan and prevent such attacks or prepare adequate responses to them.

Natural disasters have occurred e.g., in 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the United States(Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana). The U.S. was not prepared locally or nationally to immediately

respond to natural disasters. Therefore, U.S. responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were veryslow. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management System and the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) may still not be prepared to deal with natural disasters. With the ever-rising U.S.coastal population, the emergency management system does not need to simply prepare for hurricanesalone. The preparation needs to include planning for greater populations, better infrastructure andassociated vulnerabilities (May, 2006).

Change Management ResearchVarious articles reflect diverse research into the topic of organizational change. Some of these studieslook at organizational change from several perspectives. For example, in their review of theoretical andempirical change literature over a nine-year period, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) identify four researchthemes or issues common to all change efforts (1) content issues which focus on the substance of

contemporary organizational changes; (2) contextualissues, which primarily deal with forces in anorganizations external and internal environments;(3) process issues, which address actions undertakenduringthe enactment of an intended change and (4) criterion issues,which focus on outcomes commonlyassessed in organizationalchange efforts. Research dealing with monitoring affective andbehavioralreactions to change is also reviewed.Some researchers have endeavored to understand the nature orcontent of change (Beer, 1980; Burke, 1993, 1982, 1976; Burke and Litwin, 1992, Child and Keiser,1981) and continuous versus discontinuous change (Hinings and Greenwood, 1988; Romanelli andTushman, 1994).

Many articles are devoted to identifying change factors from both the external and internal environments.As organizations face the dynamic, changing environment, they are required to adapt, change and insome cases, totally transform. Earlier research examines environmental factors that motivateorganizations to change in response to external environmental threats and opportunities and focus onenvironmental factors that may motivate organizations to change (Kotter, 1996; Lawrence, 1990; Hedberg,Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976) showing that there are many driving forces that trigger the need forchange. The most widely-stated causes come from macro-environmental factors such as major economicand political changes, technological advances, rapid expansion in the global marketplace and alteringdemographic and social structures (George and Jones, 2002).

Organizations go through various internal change processes throughout their normal life cycle whereorganizational leaders may create change-driving forces within the organization. For instance, someorganizations initiate radical change that results in structural transformation through whichorganizations attempt to revitalize business orientations (Chandler, 1962; Child, 1972; Miller, 1982;Miller and Friesen, 1982; Miller and Friesen, 1984) through changing the reporting structure. Otherchanges such as mergers and acquisition, new top management teams and changing company dynamics

because of reorganization and restructuring require organizations to make significant changes notonly in strategy and structure, but also organizational culture and processes (Keifer, 2005). Researchindicates that ongoing organizational change has reflected a spiraling effect where organizations are


6/20


6

becoming increasingly engaged in multiple and even ongoing internal change events. Still more research

indicates that major restructuring as a result of downsizing the size of the organization (e.g., Keifer,

2005; Pfeffer, 1998; Parker et al., 1997) and instituting reengineering requires new patterns of behavior

throughout the entire organization (Champy, 1997, Erakovic and Wilson, 2005). Often, the revolutionary

types of change that result from restructuring and reengineering are necessary only because an

organization and its managers ignored or were unaware of changes in the environment and did not

make incremental changes as needed.

Regardless of which forces cause organizations to see the need for change, organizational leaders continue

to struggle to maintain or increase their companies competitive advantage as rapid changes occur both

in the external and internal environments. Conclusions drawn by these researchers are that the driving

forces for organizational change are the result of the need to constantly improve productivity and

efficiency (Arnetz, 2005).

Once organizational leaders realize the need for change, they also face challenges in terms of successfully

implementing initiatives that will lead to change. Again, there is significant research that focuses on

the process of implementing organizational change, with issues such as how change occurs (Beer,

Eisenstat and Spector, 1990; Kanter, 1983, 1989; Quinn, 1980), who initiates the implementation of

change (Hambrick, 1989; Robbins and Duncan, 1988; Tichy and Ulrich, 1984) and reactions to the

fairness of the change implementation, specifically whether the implementation process was handled

fairly or unfairly handled (Cobb, et al., 1995; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991).

When an organization is going through change, it is time for management to exercise leadership. They

should become the role models for the rest of the staff and exhibit behaviors that demonstrate what isexpected from employees in relation to the change. This would be consistent with social learning theory

(Bandura, 1986; Miller and Dollard, 1941) and the concept that people learn through observation of

others. Also during a time of organizational change, management needs to send positive messages

about the change itself. On one level, positive verbal reinforcement from management that the

organizational change is desirable and beneficial will expedite employees willingness to learn the change.

On another level, this will motivate employees in a direction of change. While this tactic does not fall

under a learning theory per se, it is a vital motivational approach for management to employ during

organizational change phases as a means of laying the groundwork for new learning and changes in

behavior to take place.

Robbins (2005) emphasizes the fact that some sort of reinforcement is necessary to produce changes in

behavior, so management needs to be very active during change phases to institute reinforcementtactics. One method to use that does not cost money is verbal reinforcement. Verbal reinforcement of

behaviors that fit into the organizational change will increase employee repetition of those new change

behaviors. Over time, old behaviors will hopefully become extinguished as they are replaced with new

behaviors. It really depends on the extent of the organizational change taking place as to what type and

how intense reinforcement needs to be. The essential point is that reinforcement of some sort is a

necessity for change to take place in the individual. An organization can change its structure and

policy by simply writing new rules and procedures, but the workers are not going to change quite as

easily. That is where the link between learning theories and organizational change really is and where

reinforcement comes in as a vital part of organizational change. Whether it is negative or positive,

some reinforcement is going to have to be put into place for employees to successfully adapt to changes

in the organization (Robbins, 2005).

According to Robbins (2005), research indicates that an Organizational Behavior model/ approach maybe one of the most pragmatic ways to deal with organizational change. It is a clear-cut, rational method


7/20



7

that can target behaviors and introduce strategies to help employees learn and change. The strength of

an Organizational Behavior model or approach is that is very methodical in dealing with change (i.e.,

critical behaviors are clearly identified; there is concrete information in the baseline data; behavioral

consequences are identified, there is specificity in strategies to use to make change happen and the

whole scenario is evaluated for effectiveness (Robbins, 2005).

Other studies show the failure of organizations to implement changes. This leads to more studies

focusing on the topic of change management. A recent study of companies which implemented three

process improvement programs continuous improvement, reengineering and benchmarking found

that: (1) Reengineering delivered the greatest impact on performance; (2) executive commitment was

needed to make this happen; (3) strategic alignment was the major influence on the success rate of

Reengineering and Continuous Improvement programmes; and (4) employee empowerment was necessary

for each programme to work effectively (Lok, Walsh, Wang and Crawford, 2005, p. 1357).

Some research focuses on the successful change management process (Caldwell, Herold and Fedor,

2004). A recent study suggested that non-tangible factors such as strategy and culture were the major

determinants of long-term positive results as opposed to the specific methods of implementing changes

(Nohrai and Roberson, 2003).

Change Management Models and TheoriesChange management models and theories addressed in this article and a comparison of the steps

required for each are depicted in Table 1 and listed below:

The Action Research Model/Theory (Collier, 1945; Lewin, 1946; French, 1969; Schein, 1980);

Lewins Three-Step Model (Lewin,1945; Lewin,1951);

Scheins Extension of Lewins Change Model (Schein, 1980);

The Lippit, Watson and Westley model of planned change which expanded Lewins Three-Step

Model to a Five-Phase Model (Lippit, Watson, and Westley 1958);

Kotters Strategic Eight-Step Model (Kotter, 1996);

Mento, Jones and Dirmdofers Twelve-Step Model (Mento, Jones and Dirmdofers 2002);

Jicks Ten-Step Model (Jick, 2003; Jick, 2001); and

Shields five-step model (Schield, 1999).

Action Research ModelAction research is a combination of changing not only attitudes and behavior, but also testing the

change method being utilized (McShane and Von Glinow, 2005; Collier, 1945; Lewin, 1945, 1951; French,

1969; Schein, 1980; Argyris, 1970, 1968). The first part of the change process must be action-oriented

because the ultimate goal is to make change happen. The second part revolves around trying different

frameworks in a real situation to verify whether or not the theories really work or applying the various

theories in various situations that require change. The process of action research is first to diagnose a

need for change (unfreezing), then to introduce an intervention (moving) and finally to evaluate and

stabilize change (refreezing). Each of these steps in the process is consistent with the three stages in

Lewins Model. In relating this to the speed at which some changes must occur, this approach may be

useful if it is done through the process of drills or exercises. For instance, in most schools students are

regularly subjected to fire drills so that in the event that a real fire were to occur, the students,teachers and school personnel have learned behaviors on exiting the building quickly to reduce the

potential dangers to human life.


8/20


8

Action Research

Model/Theory

Collier, 1945

Lewin, 1946

French, 1969

Schein, 1980

Lewins Model

(1945) & Scheins

Model (1980)

(Adaptation of

Lewins Model)

*1958 Lippitt,

Expanded Lewin

Kotters

Model

(1996,)

Jicks Model

(2003)

Mento/Jones/

Dirmdofers

Model

(2002)

Shields

Model

(1999)

IdentifyProblem(s)

Lewin-Step 1Unfreezing

Establish asense of

urgency

Analyze theorganizational

need forchange

The idea and itsconcept

Define thedesired result

and changeplans

Consult with

Behavioral

Science (OD)

Expert

Schein-Stage 1Need for Change;

People must be

dissatisfied with the

present.

Form a

powerful

guiding

coalition

Create a

shared vision

and common

direction

Define the change

initiative

Create

capability and

capability to

change

Gather Data &

Begin

Preliminary

Diagnosis

Lewin-Step 2Moving/

Changing

Create a vision Separate from

the past

Evaluate the

climate for

change

Design

innovation

solutions

Provide Feedback

to ClientSchein-Step 2Cognitive

Restructuring

Communicate

the vision

Create a sense

of urgency

Develop a change

plan

Select and

deploy

solutionsOD expert &

client members

diagnose

problems

Lewin-Step 3Refreezing change to

make permanent.

Empower

others to act

on the vision

Support a

strong leader

role

Find and cultivate

a sponsor

Reinforce &

sustain

business

benefits

OD expert &

client jointly plan

actions

Schein-Step 3

Refreezing involves

self and others.

Plan for and

create short

term wins

Line up

political

sponsorship

Prepare target

audience, the

recipient ofchange

Take action Schein - To be

permanent, change

becomes a part of

self, relations with

others, & system in

which people exist.

Consolidate

improvements

producing

more change

Craft an

implementatio

n plan

Create the

cultural fit-

making the

change last

Gather data after

action*Lippitt, Watson,

Westley expand

Lewins Model

Institutionalize

new

approaches

Develop

enabling

structures

Develop and

choose a change

leader team

Measure &

Evaluate results*After Step 1, addEstablish a change

relationship

Communicate,

involve people

and be honest

Create small wins

for motivation

Feed back results *After Refreezing,add Achieve aterminal relationship

Reinforce and

institutionalizethe change

Constantly and

strategicallycommunicate the

change

Re-diagnose *Lippitt, et al Five

Phase Change

Model (1958)

Measure progress

of the change

effortNew action if

necessary

Integrate Lessons

learned

Table 1: Comparison of Selected Change Models


9/20



9

Lewins ModelIn Lewins Model, there is a stipulation for three distinct steps in change management if it is to be

effective. Those are unfreezing the present, moving from the present and freezing. If this model is not

followed, then changes will be short-lived. In other words, you can cause needed change to occur.

However, in order for change to be permanent, you must dismantle the present (and the capability to

move back to the present), move from the present to the future and put in place the people and processes

to ensure permanency (Lewin, 1951). This model is still relevant in terms of what to do. However, the

speed at which it must be done has increased dramatically. Lewins Model is one for planned change,

not responses to unplanned change. Yet it is applicable when unplanned change occurs, particularly if

we know in advance that there is some probability that the change will occur. Examples are weather-

related disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and tsunamis. The U.S. agenciesin charge of responses to natural disasters have experienced various structural and reporting changes.

However, months after the hurricanes occurred, mobile homes intended for victims of Katrina and Rita

in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas were sitting unoccupied in Arkansas. Perhaps the right

organizational leaders, processes and structure are not in place. Perhaps we did not completely dismantle

the present and move from it to the needed change, OR we did not freeze the changes (make them

permanent).

Scheins (1980) Extension of Lewins Change ModelSchein (1992, 1985, 1980) discusses the three steps of Lewins Change Model as three stages of change

and describes ways to unfreeze an organization, move it from the status quo to a future state and freeze

the changes. He indicates that for unfreezing to work and for people in the organization to embrace

change, they must experience a need for change, i.e., dissatisfaction with the status quo. Then, once

the need for change and the desired change are introduced, people will see the gap between what exists

and what will exist. Because of guilt and/or anxiety, people will be motivated to reduce the gap and

achieve the desired change. In order to be productive and efficiently and effectively accomplish the

required change, people must feel psychologically safe. They must be assured that moving/

changing will not cause them humiliation, punishment, or loss of self esteem (Schein,1992, 1985,

1980).

The terminology for Stage Two, Moving or Changing, involves what Schein (1992, 1985, 1980) calls

cognitive restructuring. The purpose of Stage Two is to help people see and respond to things differently

in the future. In order for Stage Two to be effective, people must identify with new role models for the

cognitive restructuring. Also, they must acquire new, relevant information that can help them move

forward with needed changes (Schein,1992, 1985, 1980).

Schein (1992, 1985, 1980) has segmented Stage Three (Refreezing) into two parts self and relations

with others. In order to make changes permanent, people must personally make the changed way of

doing things a comfortable part of their respective self-concepts. They also must ensure that their

respective attitudes and behavior are aligned with the system and relationships with others, both of

which must become frozen, i.e., permanently changed (Schein,1992, 1985, 1980).

Lippitt, Watson and Westleys Expansion of Lewins Change ModelThe terminology and number of steps of Lewins Model are expanded and changed by Lippitt, Watson

and Westley (1958). Their Change Model includes five phases instead of three steps since steps imply

discrete actions. They insert steps as follows: after Unfreezing, Phase Two is Establish a Change

Relationship and after Refreezing, Phase 5 is Achieve a Terminal Relationship (Lippitt, Watson and

Westley, 1958).


10/20


10

Kotters ModelKotter (1996, 1998) developed a model which should be used at the strategic level of an organization to

change its vision and subsequently transform the organization. Studies using this model have shown

that the change process goes through a set of phases. Each phase lasts a certain amount of time and

mistakes at any phase can impact the success of the change. Kotters eight step approach to change

management is as follows: (1) People typically prefer the status-quo. Change means uncertainty about

what the future looks like. Uncertainty makes people uncomfortable. Furthermore, people tend to

mistrust things about which they are uncertain. That is why people avoid change. To encourage people

to assist with the change, you must create a sense of urgency (Kotter, 1996, 1998). (2) This step is

similar to interventions in drug treatment. You can try and battle the resistance to change that people

have by yourself, or you can make your life much easier by enlisting the help of others. To counteractresistance, one option is to form a powerful coalition of managers to work with the most resistant people

(Kotter, 1996, 1998). (3) While it is not impossible to get things done without a definite plan of action,

it is much simpler (and you get more cooperation) if there is a clear plan in place. Since the status quo

is more comfortable for most people, they are likely to revert to business as usual and not flow with

changes without a plan in place. Creating a vision and the strategies for achieving the vision will help

expedite the change (Kotter, 1996, 1998). (4) If people do not know that change is coming or has occurred,

they are more likely to resist the change. Assume that a co-worker makes the following statement:

Whats wrong with you? Thats not the way were doing that anymore! Such a comment makes it

clear that some big news about changes in the workplace has somehow escaped you. If that is the

case, it is probably because management failed to communicate the vision throughout the organization

change (Kotter, 1996, 1998). (5) Remembering once again that people tend to prefer the status quo and

are apprehensive about new experiences, they must be encouraged or inspired to change. Also, if you

want them to do something new, you will probably get more cooperation from them if you teach themhow first and then give them the new tools necessary to do things the new way. This step empowers

others to act on the vision by removing barriers to change and encouraging risk taking and creative

problem solving change (Kotter, 1996, 1998). (6) This step seems to be an extension of Step 5. People

need to be rewarded when they break away from old behaviors and do something that is new and

desirable. Basically it is positive reinforcement. This is the step where you plan for, create and reward

short-term wins that move the organization toward the new vision change (Kotter, 1996, 1998). (7) By

this step, resistance should be diminishing, but you still need to observe actions. It is that same status

quo thing. So, you nurture the change and make adjustments as necessary change (Kotter, 1996,

1998). (8) When it comes to work, you can never tell someone enough about all the good reasons why the

things they do make them and the company a success. Otherwise, some people will tend to behave

as if they have no reason to do anything differently than they did before. So, to make the changes more

permanent, you should reinforce them by demonstrating the relationship between new behaviors andorganizational success change (Kotter, 1996, 1998).

Jicks ModelJicks model (2003) is geared more toward a tactical level of change. Therefore, it can be used like a

recipe to guide and initiate change or to evaluate change that is already occurring in an organization.

This model can be used to show that change is an ongoing process and that questions asked at each step

should be ongoing and often overlap (Jick, 2003). See Table 1 for the ten steps in the Jick Model.

Mento, Jones and Dimdorfers ModelMento, Jones and Dimdorfers model recommends twelve steps to lead the transformational change.

This model is based on research of other change models but has been updated based on experiences

from the late 1990s (Mento, Jones and Dimdorfer, 2002). The twelve steps of this model are describedin Table 1.


11/20



11

Shields ModelShields (1999) model builds on the idea that when change fails, it is because of insufficient attention to

the human and cultural aspects of business. Shields suggests that there are critical components that

are necessary for leaders to change an organization. If a change occurs in one component and one does

not align the other components, this will lead to inefficient work processes. This system integrates

human resources management with business process innovations. Organizational leaders who are

considering change should clearly understand which strategies they want to change and define critical

success factors so that they will know the extent to which the desired change is possible. Some of the

change models do not address this phase of change. Organizations must communicate the strategic

objectives to the work force. If this is not done, the transformation effort will be reduced to a series of

unrelated change initiatives. Finally, organizational leaders must review each of the work elements toidentify their degree of alignment in support of the business strategy (Shields, 1999).

Shields (1999) suggests five steps to accomplish change: (1) Define the desired business results and

change plans; (2) Create capability as well as capability to change; (3) Design innovative solutions; (4)

Develop and deploy solutions; and (5) Reinforce and sustain business benefits.

Comparison and Critical Analysis of Change Theories and ModelsThe change models and theories presented in this paper share similar characteristics which are noted

in various steps of the models. All of the models identified a process where the organization has to

establish a reason and need for change. This step has to start with the leaders of the organization. A

companys challenge is to select the right organizational leaders who can create an atmosphere where

people are inspired to go beyond the minimum expectations. People do not want to change unless there

is a reason to change.

According to Wischnevsky (2004), organizational leaders are more likely to act if they perceive a gap

between the actual level of performance compared to an internal or external benchmark or if there are

changes that require their action. Research has shown that certain circumstances tend to increase the

likelihood that leaders will engage in major organizational change initiatives. These circumstances

include top management changes, environmental shifts and a decline in performance.

All of the models incorporate the development of a vision or desired business result and movement from

the status quo to a future state. Visioning is one of the most important steps of a change process. A good

vision helps people in the organization know where they are going. Many organizations have written

visions that are published, distributed to employees and hung prominently on the walls. Having a

published vision is not enough to direct people to a future state or assist them in getting there. Theleaders have to communicate the vision to the people within the organization and they have to lead by

example to make the vision real. When there is a difference in what leaders say and what leaders do,

this leads to a loss of trust and faith among the leaders and their people. If the vision of a company is to

have the best workforce in the industry and the leaders disregard employee opinions, hire inappropriate

candidates and spend little in the way of employee training and education, it sends a message that the

vision is not really worth the paper on which it is written (Simonson, 2005).

Some of the models address the concept of changing processes to empower people in the organization to

change. This step includes evaluating the current systems, processes and capabilities to facilitate

change. Organizational learning and the ability of a company to create and exploit knowledge and

information leads to successful organizational performance (Farrell, Flood,Curtain, Hannigan, Dawson

and West 2005). According to Herrick (2005), leaders should be involved in stewardship. This involvesthe transformational process of involving others in solutions and actions. Leaders need to create a

healthy work environment to provide the framework for a positive and professional practice environment.


12/20


12

World class organizations are known for their workplaces which are customer-focused and which empower

people to change.

All of the models incorporate the idea of reinforcing and creating small improvements to encourage

additional change. Most organizations have a model for improvement. One of the most common is the

Shewhart (or Deming) Cycle, also known as the Plan-Do-Check/Study-Act Cycle (Deming, 1986).

Employees need to understand that every process can be improved and when leadership focuses on

continuous improvement and reinforces the small successes, it encourages people to seek more

opportunities for improvement (Pryor, White and Toombs, 1998).

People respond differently to change. Some people find it exciting and enjoy change, while others

vehemently resist it. Resistance is a normal reaction to change and should be expected. This is especially

true during the development stages of groups undergoing change and working on improvement projects.

Leaders need to understand this reaction and support the teams as they go through these phases of

change. Transformational organizations recognize normal resistance and plan strategies to enable

people to work through their resistance (Kohles, Baker and Donaho, 1995).

There are some significant differences in the models as well. All change models, except Shields (1999),

identified a step where the support for the change is completed as well as developing the team which

will make the changes. The change plan should not be created in some high level office and then forced

upon the staff who will implement the changes. Instead, the planning should involve a vertical and

horizontal microcosm of an organization. When a plan is viewed as everyones plan, it can be embraced

by everyone. It is empowering when people are involved in the planning and change management

process (Collins, 2001).

Each model except Shields (1999) addresses the importance of communication in order to gain support

for the change and to encourage buy in. Although she does not discuss communication in the steps of

her change model, Sheilds does discuss them in the cultural model or levers which lead up to change.

Successful organizations have to acquire, integrate and use new knowledge to be successful. They have

to be able to combine and exchange information in order to enhance their processes to guard against

failure. Understanding where an organization is and where they should be is part of this process. This

has to be discussed, explored and communicated (Farrell, Flood, MacCurtain, Hannigan, Dawson and

West, 2005).

Mentos model (2002) is the only one which includes a step for monitoring and measuring change as it

is implemented. Successful implementation of change involves discipline. Collins (2001) in his book,Good to Great,indicates that the most successful organizations should have disciplined people, disciplined

thought and disciplined actions. People should be held accountable for their actions and this can not

occur unless measurements are in place. Newcomb (2005) suggests that leaders have to be accountable

to the organization for the results of their plans and the outcomes of the organization. Accountability

requires a master plan which can be segmented into smaller projects, assigned to teams and monitored

by team leaders. This plan can be tracked with target dates for completion and evaluation (Newcomb,

2005).

Jicks (2003) and Mentos (2002) models include a step that addresses leadership behavior and supporting

strong leadership characteristics. Kotter (1996) and Shields (1999) focus more on the cultivation of the

team members implementing the change. Transformational leadership has four dimensions: (1)

charisma, (2) inspiration to gain support for their vision, (3) individual consideration and (4) intellectual

stimulation. Although there has been research focusing on transformational change, there have beenfew studies that focus on the CEOs impact on the effective functioning of the top management team

(Farrell, Flood, Curtain, et.al. 2005).


13/20



13

Newcomb (2005) reports that transformational leaders challenge the status quo and drive change in an

organization. He indicates that there are specific requirements for successful leaders: (1) Leaders must

have the ability to assess the environment on a continuous basis: (2) Leaders must know what their

visions are and be able to gain support for them; and (3) Leaders must have the ability to execute the

plan in order to achieve the vision that they have established. Carly Fiorina achieved significant,

meaningful change at Hewlett Packard (HP) as she fought board members and acquired Compaq.

However, as HPs Board of Directors ousted Fiorina, they stated that she failed to execute the plans.

Clearly, HPs Board members and Fiorina had the same vision when they hired her. However, they

differed in terms of speed of execution. (La Monica, 2005)

According to Carless (1998), there are common themes seen in transformational leaders. These leaders

can clearly articulate a vision, use nontraditional thinking, encourage individual feedback, promote atrusting environment and promote cooperation among the team. Transformational leadership has become

a popular model of leadership in business organization. According to her study, there are few gender

differences in transformational leadership behaviors. What is important to transformational leadership

is the emphasis on vision, development of individuals and empowerment (Carless, 1998).

Preparation for the AbnormalMitroff (2004) says that organizational leaders have no other alternative they must think about and

prepare for the abnormal. He goes on to say that organizational leaders need to learn how to think like

a sociopath because so many of todays problems are the result of deliberate evil acts. He states that

nations as well as organizations and institutions have become breeding grounds for crises of all kinds.

He feels that conventional management is of little use in either coping with or preventing major crises.

In fact, he feels that conventional methods are largely responsible for causing major crises. Organizationalleaders must think about and prepare for the abnormal because in the last few years, a new and

ominous category of crises (abnormal, intentional accidents) has emerged. These intentional accidents

are the result of deliberate acts of evil. Abnormal, intentional accidents are bad enough, but the character

of normal accidents has also changed dramatically. Therefore, organizational leaders must learn how

to think about the unthinkable by forcing themselves to change their frames of reference as they

prepare to respond to and/or prevent terrorism, violence and other abnormal situations in the workplace

and in society (Pryor, Humphreys, Taneja and Moffitt, 2007).

Reinvention of the Future through the 5Ps ModelThe most profitable change is reinvention of the future, not response to the present. Therefore,

organizational leaders should adopt a dynamic strategic management model that enables their respective

organizations to be in a state of continuous entrepreneurial reinvention. They can only do this if theirstrategic management model is a systems model and all elements in the system are continuously re-

aligned as reinvention occurs. We suggest the 5 Ps Model. The five elements of this model are: Purpose,

Principles, Processes, People and Performance. This is a systems model and all five elements of the

model must be aligned for the model to be most effective. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the elements and

sub-elements of the 5 Ps Model. If these elements are in place and in a state of continuous re-alignment,

an organization can become transformed and transforming. Its organizational leaders can invent its

future and it can positively impact its domestic and international environments. The Purpose (strategic

thrust), Principles, Processes, People and Performance systems should be in place so that the organization

can operate at the highest possible levels of efficiency and effectiveness. This is important in todays

world of continuous, complex change because the competition is not only with other organizations in an

industry or a strategic group but the competition also includes terrorist organizations that seek to

destroy economies as well as people to achieve their political or other purposes (Pryor, Humphreys,

Taneja and Moffitt, 2007). The 5Ps is a strategic model that enables an organization or a nation to besuccessful against all competitors.


14/20


14

Purpose

Principles, Processes

People

Performance

Mission

Vision

Core

Values

Goals &

Objectives

SWOT

Analysis

Strate ies

Tactics

Measurement

&

FeedbackPurpose

Figure 3: The 5Ps Model for Strategic Transformation, Alignment, and Management

Source: Mildred Golden Pryor, Donna Anderson, Leslie A. Toombs, and John H.Humphreys, (2007), Strategic Implementation as a Core Competency: The 5PsModel,Journal of Management Research7(1), April, 2007, pp. 3-17, (an adaptation).

Purpose


People

Performance

Processes

System

Procedures

Communication

Channels

Organization

Structure

Physical

Steps toProduce a

good or

service

Principles

Shared Core

Values

Philosophies

& Assumptions

Attitudes

Ethics

Operating

Guidelines &

Agreed Upon

Behaviors

Integrity

Base

Figure 4: The 5Ps Model Principles and Processes

Source: Mildred Golden Pryor, Donna Anderson, Leslie A. Toombs, and John H.Humphreys, (2007), Strategic Implementation as a Core Competency: The 5PsModel,Journal of Management Research7(1), April, 2007, pp.3-17. (An adaptation)


15/20



15

Purpose


People

Performance

People

Teams

Internal

Suppliers

External

Suppliers

Empowerment

Individuals

Internal

Customers

External

Customers

Purpose


People

Performance

Performance

Key

PerformanceIndicators (KPIs)

Balanced

Scorecard

Baselines

Target

Comparison

Against

Target

Benchmarking

Figure 5: The 5Ps Model People

Source:Mildred Golden Pryor, Donna Anderson, Leslie A. Toombs, and John H.Humphreys, (2007), Strategic Implementation as a Core Competency: The 5PsModel,Journal of Management Research7(1), April, 2007, pp. 3-17, (An adaptation).

Figure 4: The 5Ps Model Performance

Source:Mildred Golden Pryor, Donna Anderson, Leslie A. Toombs, and John H.Humphreys, (2007), Strategic Implementation as a Core Competency: The 5PsModel,Journal of Management Research7(1), April, 2007, pp.3-17. (An adaptation)


16/20


16

Conclusion and Recommendations

The change management models that have been discussed in this article are still relevant and can be

used as they have been in the past, with one exception the speed at which the steps, stages, or phases

of the models occur. This era is one of rapid change, sophisticated communication and technological

systems and variables that make preparation for the future complex and fast-paced. In order to be able

to be a winner in this type of environment, processes and relationships must be streamlined, non-

value-added activities must be eliminated and people at all levels in organizations must be empowered

to rapidly make decisions and held accountable for those decisions.

This article addresses selected change management models and research, their relevance in todays

global economy and the challenges facing organizational leaders and researchers in terms of theirapplication and expected results as well as the speed and complexity of change required.

In todays world of constant, complex change, organizational leaders who react rapidly and responsibly

are successful. The organizational leaders who anticipate and invent the future are even more successful

because they are the leaders in their organizations and their industries. The organizations that do not

survive are those that are led by people who fail to invent the future or even adapt to change.

This article discussed and compared the components of various change models that have been (and can

be) used to react to and/or lead change. We also suggested a relatively new strategic management

model (The 5Ps Model) as well as applications of existing change management models and theories.

The 5Ps Model can be used to strategically and tactically manage an organization as organizational

leaders respond to change and invent the future for the organization and the industry.

Empirical research should be conducted assessing the extent to which organizations have developed an

agile system that can continuously reinvent itself. This research should investigate what parts of the

system are missing or inadequately aligned in order to predict how capable the organizations are in

terms of organizational transformation. The 5 Ps Model is unique in that it can simultaneously enhance

organizational stability and the capability for organizational transformation. Organizations need more

than a model that simply helps an organization move from the current state to a future state. What is

needed is a comprehensive, systems model that is strategic, yet also has elements that are executable

at the tactical level. The 5 Ps Model is such a comprehensive, strategic, systems model.

References

Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999), Organizational Change: a Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s,

Journal of Management,Vol.25, No.3, pp.293-315.

Argyris, C. (1970),Intervention Theory and Method, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. (1968), Some Unintended Consequences of Rigorous Research, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.7, pp.185-97.

Arnetz, B.B. (2005), Subjective Indicators as a Gauge for Improving Organizational Well-Being, An Attempt to Apply the

Cognitive Activation Theory to Organizations, Psychoneuroendocrinology, Vol.30, pp,1022-1026.

Bailey, J. (2007), Stock bonuses at American Anger Pilots, The New York Times, March 27, Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007, from

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/business/27air.html.

Bandura A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Beckhard, R. (1969), Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Beckhard, R. (1997), The Healthy Organization, The Organization of the Future, (The Drucker Foundation, Frances

Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard, Editors), San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, pp.325-328.

Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, 2ndEd. Reading, Mass:

Addison-Wesley.


17/20



17

Beckhard, R. and W. Pritchard (1992), Changing The Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in

Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beer, M. (1980), Organizational Change and Development: A Systems View, Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., and Spector, B. (1990), Why Change Programs Dont Produce Change Harvard Business

Review, (Nov.-Dec.), pp.158-166.

Boeker, W. (1989), Strategic Change: The Effects of Founding and HistoryAcademy of Management Journal, Vol.32.

pp.489-515.

Bram, J., Orr, J., and Rapaport, C. (2002), Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City

Economic Policy Review Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol.8, No.2, pp.5-20.

Burke, J.A., Polimeni, R.S., and Slavin, N.S. (2007), Academic Dishonesty: A Crisis on Campus Forging Ethical Professionals

Begins in the Classroom, The CPA Journal, (May), pp.58-65.Burke, W.W. (1993), The Changing World of Organization Change, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.45, No.1,

pp.9-17.

Burke, W.W. (1982), Organization Development: Principles and Practices, Boston: Little, Brown.

Burke, W.W. (1976), Organization Development in Transition,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.12, pp.22-43.

Burke, W. and Litwin, G. (1992), A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change,Journal of Management,

Vol.18, pp.523-545.

Caldwell, S.D., Herold, D.M., and Fedor, D.B. (2004), Toward an Understanding of the Relationships among Organizational

Change, Individual Differences, and Changes in Person-Environment Fit: A Cross-Level Study,Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol.89, No.5, pp.868-882.

Carless, S.A. (1998), Gender Differences in Transformational Leadership: An Examination of Superior, Leader, and

Subordinate Perspectives, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Vol.39, No. 11-12, (Dec.), pp.887-902.

Cateora, Philip R. and Graham, John L. (2002),International Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Caterinicchia, D. (2007), Oil.Dallas Morning News (Business Casual) from the Associated Press, (Apr. 11), Retrieved

Apr. 11, 2007 from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/casual/stories/DN-OilPrices_04bus.ART.State.

Edition1.35 bc4c8.html.

Champy, James (1997), Preparing for Organizational Change, The Organization of the Future,San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Publishers, pp.9-16, (The Drucker Foundation, Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard, Editors).

Chandler, A. (1962), Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger.

Child, J. (1972), Organization Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice Sociology, Vol.6,

pp.1-22.

Child, J. and Keiser, J. (1981), Development of Organizations Over Time, In P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck, (Eds.),

Handbook of Organizational Design, pp.28-64, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

CNN.Com/U.S. (2007). California Fires Char S. California, at Least Half a Million Flee, (Oct. 23), Retrieved Sept. 11,2007 from http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/23/wildfire.ca/.

CNN.Com/World/Asia (2007), Afghan Suicide Bomber Kills 9, (Oct. 14), Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007 from http://

edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/31/madrid.trial/index.html

CNN.Com/World/Europe (2007), Spain Condemns Terror Verdict, (Sept. 1), Retrieved Sept. 09, 2007 from http://

edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/31/madrid.trial/index.html

Cobb, A.T., Wooten, K.C., and Folger, R. (1995), Justice in the Making: Toward Understanding the Theory and Practice

of Justice in Organizational Change and Development, in Woodman, R. and Pasmore, W. (Eds),Research in Organizational

Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol.8, pp.243-95.

Collier, J. (1945), United States Indian Administration as a Laboratory of Ethnic Relations, Social Research,Vol.12,

pp.275-85.

Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great, Harper Collins Publishers Inc, NY, pp.124-129.

Copello, A.G., Templeton, L., and Velleman, R. (2006), Family Interventions gor Drug and Alcohol Misuse: Is There BestPractice? Current Opinion in Psychiatry,Vol. 19, No.3, pp.271-276.


18/20


18

Cummings, Thomas G. and Worley, Christopher G. (2005), Organization Development and Change, United States: Thomson/

South-Western.

Deming, W. Edwards (1986), Out of the Crises, 2nd, Ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering

Study.

Dougherty, C. (2007), Prosecutions of Business Corruption Soar in Germany, International Herald Tribune, Retrieved

October 23, 2007 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/15/business/deutsch.php

Erakovic, L. and Wilson, M. (2005), Conditions of Radical Transformation in State-Owned Enterprises,British Journal

of Management,Vol.16, pp.293-313.

Farrell, J.B., Flood, P.C., Mac Curtain, S.M., Hannigan, A., Dawson, J., and West, M. (2005), CEO Leadership, Top Team

Trust and the Combination and Exchange of Information, The Irish Journal of Management, Vol.26, pp.22-40.

French, W.L. (1969), Organization Development: Objectives, Assumptions, and Strategies California ManagementReview, Vol.12, pp.23-24.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2002), Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior, Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1996), Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the

New Institutionalism, The Academy of Management Review, Vol.21, No.4, pp.1022-1054.

Hambrick, D.C. (1989), Putting Top Managers Back in the Strategy Picture, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10,

Special Issue: Strategic Leaders and Leadership, (Summer), pp.5-15.

Hedberg, B.L.T., Nystrom, P.C., and Starbuck, W.H. (1976), Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing

Organization,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.21, pp.41-65.

Heineman, B.W. and Heimann, F. (2006), The Long War against Corruption, Foreign Affairs, Vol.85,p.115.

Herrick, K.S. (2005), The Opportunities of Stewardship,Nurse Administration Quarterly, Vol.29, No.2, pp.115-118.

Hinings, C.R. and Greenwood, R. (1988), The Dynamics of Strategic Change, Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Jick, Todd D. (2003),Managing Change: Cases and Concepts, Second Edition, New York: Irwin Publishing.

Jick, Todd D. (2001), Vision Is 10%, Implementation The Rest,Business Strategy Review, Vol.12, No.4, pp.36-38.

Johnson, J. (2002), 11thSeptember, 2001: Will It Make a Difference to the Global Anti-Money Laundering Movement?

Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol.6, No.1, Summer 2002, p.9.

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy, Management, and Careers in the

1990s, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kelly, D. and Amburgey, T.L. (1991), Organizational Inertia and Momentum: A Dynamic Model of Strategic Change The

Academy of Management Journal, Vol.34, No.3, pp.591-612.

Kieffer, T. (2005), Feeling Bad: Antecedents and Consequences of Negative Emotions in Ongoing Change, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol.26, pp.875-897.

Kohles, M.K., Baker, W.G., and Donaho, B.A. (1995), Transformational Leadership, Renewing Fundamental Values and

Achieving New Relationships in Healthcare, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol.28, pp.141-146.

Kotter, J.P. (1996),Leading Change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, John P. (1998), The Leadership Factor, New York: The Free Press.

La Monica and Paul, R. (2005) Fiorina Out... CNN Money.Com, Retrieved Apr. 29, 2006 from http://money.cnn.com/2005/

02/09/Technology/Hp_Fiorina/

Lawrence, P. (1990), Why Organizations Change, In A. M. Mohrman et al. (Eds.),Large-Scale Organizational Change,

pp.48-61, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, Kurt (1945) (1951), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papersby Kurt Lewin, Ed. Dorwin

Cartwright, Boston, Massachusetts: MIT Research Center for Group Dynamics and New York: Harper and Brothers

Publishers.

Lippitt, R., Watson, J., and Westley, B. (1958),Dynamics of Planned Change, New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lindgreen, A. (2004), Corruption,Journal of Business Ethics,Vol.51, No.1, (Apr.), pp.31-35.


19/20



19

Lok, P., Hung, R.Y., Walsh, P., Wang, P., and Crawford, J. (2005), An Integrative Framework for Measuring the Extent to

Which Organizational Variables Influence the Success of Process Improvement Programmes,Journal of Management

Studies,Vol.42, No.7, pp.1356-1381.

Media Matters (2007), CNNs Beck on Iranian threat: You dont have to . . . . (Sept. 10), Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007 from

Media Matters for Americahttp://mediamatters.org/items/200710090002.

Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M., and Dirndorfer, W. (2002), A Change Management Process: Grounded in Both Theory and

Practice,Journal of Change Management, Vol.3, No.1, pp.45-59.

Mcshane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. (2005), Organizational Behavior(3rd Ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Miller N. and Dollard J. (1941), Social Learning and Imitation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Miller, D. (1982), Evolution and Revolution: A Quantum View of Structural Change in Organizations, Journal of

Management Studies, Vol.19, No.2, pp.131-151.Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984), Organizations: A Quantum View, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982), Structural Change and Performance: Quantum versus Piecemeal-Incremental

Approaches,Academy of Management Journal, Vol.25, No.4, pp.867-892.

Mitroff, I.I. (2004), Think Like A Sociopath, Act Like A Saint, The Journal of Business Strategy,Vol.25, No.5, p.42.

Mohrmann, A. Mohrmann, S., Ledford, G., Cummings, T., and Lawler Jr., E.E. eds. (1989),Large-Scale Organizational

Change,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1989), Organizational Frame Bending: Principles of Managing Reorientation,The Academy

of Management Executive,Vol.3, No.3, pp.194-204.

NASA News (2004), Tsunami Destroys Lhoknga, Indonesia, Dec. 29, 2004, Retrieved Sept. 11., 2007 from the Earth

Observatory NASA News - NASA.GovWeb Site http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_

id=16777.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: The Final Report of the National Commission

on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July, W.W. Norton and Company.

Newcomb, K. (2005), Transformational Leadership: Four Keys to Help You and Your Organization Stay Focused on

Continuous Improvement and Greater ValueDebt3, Nov.-Dec. 2005, Retrieved Oct.13, 2007 from the website of Commercial

Law League of America http://www.debt3online.com/?page=article&article_id=79.

Newhouse, David R. and Chapman, Ian D. (1996), Organizational Transformation: A Case Study of Two Aboriginal

Organizations, Human Relations,Vol.49, No.7, pp.995-1011.

Nohria, N., Joyce, W., and Roberson, B. (2003), What Really Works?Harvard Business Review, Vol.81, pp.43-52.

Parker, S.K., Chmiel, N., and Wall, T.D. (1997), Work Characteristics and Employee Well-Being within a Context of

Strategic Downsizing,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.2, pp.289-303.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change,

Organization Science, Special Issue Vol.1, No.3, pp.267-292.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

PBS Parents (2007), Clicking with Children: Computers and Young Children, PBS Parents, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2007 from

PBS Parents web site http://www.pbs.org/parents/readinglanguage/articles/clicking/experts.htmlhttp://www.pbs.or

Pryor, M.G., Anderson, D.A., Toombs, L.A., and Humphreys, J. (2007), Strategic Implementation as a Core Competency,

Journal of Management Research,(April).

Pryor, M.G. and Cullen, B.D. (1993), Learn to Use TQM as Everyday Work, Industrial Management, Vol.35, No.3,

(May-June), pp.10-14.

Pryor, M.G., White, J.C., and Toombs, L.A. (1998), Strategic Quality Management: A Strategic, Systems Approach to

Continuous Improvement, United States: Thomson Learning.

Pryor, M.G., Taneja, S., Humphreys, J., and Moffitt, B. (2007), Terrorism A Strategic, Process Management Issue,

Accepted for presentation at the January, 2008 International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines

(IABPAD) Conference in Orlando, Florida and for publication in theIABPAD Proceedings.Quinn, J.B. (1980), Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Homewood, IL: Irwin.


20/20


20

Reiss, Albert J., Jr., Ed.; Roth., and Jeffrey A., Ed. (1993), Understanding and Preventing Violence, Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press.

Robbins, S.P. (2005), Organizational Behavior(11thEd.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Robbins, S.R. and Duncan, R.B. (1988), The Role of the CEO and Top Management in the Creation and Implementation

of Strategic Vision, in D.C. Hambrick (Ed.), The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers,

pp.205-233, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M.L. (1994), Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test,

The Academy of Management Journal, Vol.37, No.5, (Oct.), pp.1141-1166.

Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2ndEd., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E.H. (1985), Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, 3rdEd., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1991), Communication with Employees Following a Merger: A Longitudinal Field

Experiment,Academy of Management Journal, Vol.34, No.1, pp.110-135.

Shaver, Katherine (2006), Conference Addresses School Shootings, (Oct. 11), Washington Post.

Shields, J. (1999), Transforming Organizations, Methods for Accelerating Culture Change Processes, Information

Knowledge Systems Management, Vol.1, No.2, (Apr.), pp.105-115.

Simonson, M. (2005), Distance Education: Eight Steps for Transforming an Organization, The Quarterly Review of

Distance Education, Vol.6, No.2, pp.7-8.

Spencer, J. and Casey, N. (2007), Toy Recall Shows Challenge China Poses to Partners, The Wall Street Journal Online,

Mar. 8, 2007, Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007 from http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118607762324386327.html.

Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R.E., Greenfield, P.M., and Gross, E.F. (2000), The Impact of Home Computer Use on

Childrens Activities And Development. The Future of Children, Vol.10, No.2,pp.123-144,Fall/Winter, Retrieved from

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=69826.

Tichy, N. and Ulrich, D. (1984), Revitalizing Organizations: The Leadership Role, In J.R. Kimberly and J.B. Quinn

(Eds.),Managing Organizational Transitions, pp.240-264, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

USA Today (2005), Latest Hurricane Katrina Developments, USA Today, (Feb. 9), Retrieved Sept. 11, 2007 from the

USA Today Web Site http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-08-29-katrina-blog_x.htm

Wischnevsky, J.D. (2004), Change as the Winds Change: The Impact of Organizational Transformation on Firm Survival

in a Shifting Environment,Organizational Analysis, Vol.12, No.4, pp.361-377.

cv - ailene alea

Documents